Talk:Human evolution

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about human evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins. Off topic discussions may be deleted on sight.

what is not OK with this information ?

Earlier studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA have largely supported a recent African origin, while genomic studies and evidence of genomic lineages do not support recent out of Africa replacement instead suggest multiregional evolution as coherent model, with both haplogroup and genomic data.

The above sentence cant be added. I think its pov, but the question is above. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One issue is the awkward placement of the "[1]" reference which breaks the sentence. Another is the awkward English following "[1]" – I would need a few minutes to work out what it is saying. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The text above is result of earlier text (see diffs); off course will be better to rephrase it, e.g.:

Earlier studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA have largely supported a recent out of African replacement, while new genomic studies and evidence of genomic lineages do not support replacement hypothesis . Multiregional evolution propose model consistent with haplogroup, genomic data and fossil record.

is ti OK? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, although small tweaks to the English are needed, and we need to work out what to call the competing models, and the text should not sound as if it is promoting the ME view.

I have explained before that I totally understand that no species has an "origin" (and obviously if we trace any species back in time, the defining characteristics of the species we started with disappear – it makes no sense to talk about a species over large periods of time). Nevertheless, it is common to use the incorrect term "origin", and your text is intended for the end of the lead, just after it has mentioned "recent African origin of modern humans (RAO)". Therefore, it is confusing to suddenly drop "origin" and say "recent out of Africa replacement".

Although I have not read the papers you cited, my feeling is that the ME hypothesis will triumph over RAO. However, we still need to mention ME in a neutral way. Another issue regards including references that are actually links to another Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how best to handle that. In conclusion, here is some suggested text (although I'm not entirely happy with it):

Earlier studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA largely supported the recent out of Africa model, while new genomic studies and evidence of genomic lineages do not[1]. The multiregional evolution model is consistent with haplogroup evidence, genomic data, and the fossil record[2].

I put "[1]" and "[2]" above; these need to be replaced with references, and a careful check that the words above are supported by the references is needed. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of important points in the article, so we need to check the article. Other comments would be welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as happy as Johnuniq is. The nuclear DNA evidence, even the long TMRCAs, is consistent with Out of Africa, as is the fossil evidence. This wording implies that they're not. It also uses a construction that makes it appear that the multiregional evolution work has superceded outdated research, which isn't the case. This wording isn't neutral or factual. p.s. While we're stating beliefs, I don't think multiregional evolution will be shown to be correct. Fences&Windows 02:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. As I said, I haven't read the papers, and the text only stands if it is really supported by the refs. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So is now OK to tag the art {POV} until you finally read the 'papers' or screens and contribute something meaningful or become fully happy?

ups it is already tagged POV 76.16.176.166 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is THIS why the entire article has been tagged for NPOV? (And after reading the discussion above, I'm still unclear as to what "this" is). I don't see any of the essentials here. There is no clear statement on this page about why the ENTIRE article has been tagged. In fact, there is no actual statement here by the tagger detailing and explaining their actions. IMHO, that tag should be removed, and a more limited NPOV tag should be applied to the section where there may (or may not) be an issue.

As it stands, it just looks like another act of creationist vandalism.--Digthepast (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur that in the absense of a clear and specific justification the tagging seems improper. This kind of drive-by tagging is relatively commonplace, and yet the follow-up rarely seems to be there. Doc Tropics 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was an IP editor who believed the page is biased against the multiregional hypothesis, see the discussion directly above. Fences&Windows 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fences, the discussion above concerns a small part of the article. Important though it may be to some, it does not warrant tagging the entire article for NPOV. There is no edit summary in the page history, and the IP address associated with this edit appears, from the associated talk page, to have issues with correct editing. (In fact, you yourself appear to have pointed this out on several occasions). I have to assume that they simply did not understand how to tag a section, and ended up tagging the entire article.

Here's the info on the specific edit...

13:27, 25 June 2009 76.16.176.166 (talk) (62,231 bytes) (undo)

This is what the editor has to say on the page itself: "POV|no data on currentdi autosomal genomic research contradicting RAR, problem with adding single sentence pointing to this subject|date=June 2009"

Accordingly, as the "POV issue" here appears to be the editor's inability to make edits, and as there has been no discussion of the substantive issue that started this in the month+ since the tag was put up, I will assume that the issue is resolved.

I will remove the tag. If anyone here has a problem with that, we can certainly discuss it further, hopefully on this page.--Digthepast (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I totally agree. Fences&Windows 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

nonsense multiregional origin

the term is multiregional evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

?

What is your sense ? 76.16.183.158 (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi 76! Always good to hear from you, but if you have something to say, the talk page of the article would be better. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't get the question. The question is: what reason you have to revert to nonsense ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My mind reading skills are getting a bit rusty, so I will await your elucidation on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to read mind just read the history.

[1] nuclear genes supports a multiregional origin evolution. Just first example of misunderstanding. Do you understand why?

For anyone interested, the above has been copied by 76.16.183.158 from my talk page to here.

I reverted this edit which involved:

1. Change "multiregional origin" to "multiregional evolution".
2. Add sentence "(Mounsterian Levallois technique outside Europe was used to more recent periods.)"
3. Replace a sentence with "(Hoverer lice DNA only lover bound match that date while upper point to origin of clothing before 100,000 years ago. Earliest known cave painting are more recent than proposed magic dates. In Africa about 20 ka. Some cultures till today do not bury death and some did not use clothing at all 200 years ago.)"
4. Delete large section "Implications for the concept of race".
5. Some other things.

Re (1): We have had this conversation before and you have never acknowledged the issue. I don't particularly mind about this point, but the fact is that words are sometimes used somewhat incorrectly, and we all know that "origin" ain't right. However, a little Google will confirm that despite its inaccuracy, "origin" is very commonly used in this context, so I would like to see the opinion of some other editors before accepting your view about changing it.

Re (2) and (3): I think some work is needed on the English.

Re (4): I haven't recently read the deleted section, but judging by its title, it might be a good idea to delete or refactor it. However, given the history of contentious editing, I think it would desirable to first give a better reason than "deleting chapter" for why it should be removed. Ideally, you would create a new section on this talk page proposing that the section be removed, with a brief reason. Wait 24 hours. Delete the section if no objections. Johnuniq (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever the anon. editor's native language is, maybe there is a wikipedia in that language she can edit. I have no problem making the intelligible expression of thought a requirement for editing at Wikipedia. Surely, if the point 79 is making is mainstream knowledge, an edior fluent in English (from any country) will let us know. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you like typing. If copy paste is not your favorite pleasure could you make an extra effort to copy the sources. Just to pretend that you present true image edits, Or are you already disvalidated the sources ? 76.16.183.158 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would be more patient, you might find that I could help with some issues such as English expression. Working with people is necessary here, so I do not understand why you appear to have disregarded my above suggestion that before deleting a large section you should post a reason here, then wait 24 hours to see if there are any objections. Also, there really is a problem with your English – do you doubt that, or do you think it does not matter? If you would just write out what change you think is necessary here with reasons, then respond to questions, it may well be that someone will help and we would have very little disagreement. Your above comments are more combative than collaborative, and will not help here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From a relatively new user...the Homo Antecessor and the lineage of the Homo Erectus conflict with information on the page of the extinct Neanderthals...saying that Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens and its cousin Homo Neanderthalis...but...the image shown in this paper, with the brown bubbles, specifically shows a distinctly different linage than what I would expect otherwise.. explanation? thanks. Spelaringenroll (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a variety of problems with this page. The picture referenced in the comment above is a good example. I am from Germany and was told that the "Neandertaler" actually is a subtype of homo erectus as well as homo erectus heidelbergensis. So there are a lot of branches of homo erectus, but homo sapiens comes from a genetic singularity. The genetics data hints at all of mankind being descendants of a single interrelated group, with an Eve as kind of "mother of mankind" (mitochondrial dna has very few mutations for all humans tested so far). The current theory is that there was some kind of extincton event and only a specific group of those half-naked almost sentient primates survived due to luck or some unique advantageous mutation. Another theory is of course the theory of distant origin or genetic manipulation by ancient astronauts. Please do not deride these theories but keep an open mind: I There is still the "missing link" missing; II Group of ancestors is small enough for a decent-sized spaceship; III There is a school of evolutionists who claim that life in general and intelligent life in particular had to develop as it did: Humans are rather weak but intelligence compensates physical deficiencies, they have to be warm-blooded mammals with thumbs and so forth, so all intelligent life would develop on earth-like planets and to human-like sentients; IV Humans without any means to measure time fall in to a regular activity-cycle of 25 hours (NOT 24h!) V A wide variety of unexplained artifacts (Nazca, columns of pure iron, radioactive hotspot in the Himalayans, Easter Island culture, bible Ezechiel 1, apocryphal book of Enoch, etc.) The problem with the extinction event theory is of course that only man was suffering from this event, the extinction associated with the ice ages came after the widespread advent of homo sapiens and homo erectus remains are found later than that... And "homo flores..." was a group of homo erectus suffering from some genetic defect on an isolated island, so it is probably the result of interbreeding. To make it short: The entire article needs a major overhaul! If anybody has the time and expertise, please verify the diverse claims and write an article of quality with reference to all theories. Thank you! [[[Special:Contributions/79.196.209.50|79.196.209.50]] (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)]

These beliefs are so fringe that they do not warrant inclusion in the article, I'm afraid. Fences&Windows 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fences and Windows is right, this is covered by policies regarding fringe views and undue weight. It's really not possible or appropriate to include those theories in this article, but thanks for your interest. Doc Tropics 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

1

1. to mark which statements in article represent ONLY RAO views. Which only ME. Not mark those Which are in agreement to both RAO and ME. If not marked only one sided statements portrait misleading impresarios (what is perhaps POV or more.=, rather it is MF) that those statement are supported by all scientific community.
2. put better wording in abstract as here (text below). Previous wording contains wording objectionable from one or both ME and RAO views.

The two dominant view among scientists are, recent African origin of modern humans, and the multiregional evolution. The Recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) view that H. sapiens speciated somewhere around 200 thousands years ago in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing other humans. The multiregional evolution (ME), view humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population, from beginning of Pleistocene around 2.5 million years ago. For RAO multiple speciation originated numbers of human species replacing each other, for ME the gene flow between regional populations evolved into H. sapiens living today.

The text above do not contain wording objectionable from each RAO and ME standpoint.(if has then what?) Who oppose and why ?Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

2

1. Instead of tagging or marking statements, edit those statements to conform to neutrality guidelines.
2. The dominant view among physical anthropologists is the Out of Africa model, putting the multiregional origin model side by side with equal amounts of information and arranging the text to make it seem the two views share equal status among academics violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. JPotter (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3

0. Re:JP: "The dominant view among physical anthropologists is the Out of Africa model"

1. Show good example of proposed changes. Start with filling up the citation requests.
2. Note quote from article abstract, "The fossil evidence were insufficient to Leakey to resolve this vigorous debate,"... How you transform this excerpt to your wording under #2? Richard Leakey, physical anthropologist is one of leading sponsors of RAO hypothesis.
3. 2(1,2) indirect answers do not seem to oppose proposed textual changes but if you oppose please state it more clearly. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

4 http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/migration.htm JPotter (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

5 Thats all? Should one asume the websites be prove to #3.0 Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else know what this person is talking about. He seems to want citations for the statements that the dominant view is the Out of Africa model. That's been provided (although I see the request for citations in the article still exist). JPotter (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not alone, I've almost given up trying to follow their talk page comments. XC's MO is to edit war, act as a POV warrior for the multiregional hypothesis, rewrite things in pidgen English, tag bomb articles, and ramble incoherently on talk pages. Fences&Windows 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• JP:He seems to want citations for the statements that the dominant view is the Out of Africa model. That's been provided
• The first (2001) website[2] only closest match for word 'dominant' is culminating in our dominance of the planet. Can someone, somehow, explain to above syndicated interlocutors, which seem not understand, what is the difference between: dominant view among physical anthropologists and human dominance on planet. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two quotes from the article

There are two theories about the origin of modern humans: 1) they arose in one place — Africa and 2) pre-modern humans migrated from Africa to become modern humans in other parts of the world. Most evidence points to the first theory because fossils of modern-like humans are found in Africa, stone tools and other artifacts support African origin DNA studies suggest a founding population in Africa

— Donald Johanson, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

For the moment, the majority of anatomical, archaeological and genetic evidence gives credence to the view that fully modern humans are a relatively recent evolutionary phenomenon. The current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model that postulates a single, African origin for Homo sapiens.

— Donald Johanson, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

Now, those are two quotes, from a respected physical anthro, who confirms the that majority view is a recent African migration. This website is the number one Google search for "out of africa vs multiregional". There are dozens of other websites, journals, and colleges that affirm this view is the mainstream view. You'll need to provide evidence that anthropologists have recently been convinced by newer evidence. Also, you are now reverting large swaths of cited text in contravention of the consensus here on the talk page. You'll need to stop doing that or else be subject to vandalism provisions as per Wikipedia policy. JPotter (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

JP:This website is the number one Google search for "out of africa vs multiregional". There are dozens of other websites,...

7. This #1 website is dated, May 2001. Do we agree that current year is 2009? (interlocutor argumentation seem to mix understanding, of scientific subject with voting contest of search engine ranking). The other website #2 cited by Jason Potter contain link to 2002 paper contradicting thesis you seem to back up by this link.

3.0. Re:JP: "The dominant view among physical anthropologists is the Out of Africa model"

<-Understanding that talk on Wikipedia is alternatively entertaining test of gentle patience of educational skills,--> Lets read excerpt (Multiregionalism vs. Out of Africa by Susan Carr) from [#2] website: Fossil evidence strongly supports the multiregional hypothesis... We should agree, that providing fossil evidence is major reserch subject of physical anthropologist. Do Jason Potter accept {failed verification} as proper tag for both refs? Cite current: Nature, Science, PNAS, or other peer revived journals. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to debate the veracity of the claims made by the two sides in the scientific debate. The matter at hand is to determine what is the mainstream view. Nothing more. I have provided a source that says, as of 2001, the recent African migration model was the mainstream view. Do you have any evidence to suggest that since then, the mainstream has shifted to the multiregional view? The http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/migration.htm website also has a link, a 2009 NY Times article you failed to mention, that says Dr. Tishkoff’s team has also calculated the exit point from which a small human group — maybe a single tribal band of 150 people — left Africa some 50,000 years ago and populated the rest of the world. The region is near the midpoint of the African coast of the Red Sea. The use of Google is to point out that it took me literally five seconds to find an article that supported the consensus view here. I'm sure you are compelled to make Wikipedia better and not to push your own personal view, no matter how right or wrong, into the article.

So again, you'll need to provide evidence that the mainstream view has shifted. JPotter (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If this mess media article (perhsps based on 10.1126/science.1172257 [3]) is the "last nail" to to quote/prove/refere The dominant view among scientists is [2][3][4][5] the recent African origin of modern humans ...it do not show it. Just quote from this article:

• Since the geneticists’ calculations refer to people, not geography, ... therefore the site of greatest human diversity — might have been located elsewhere in the past. (but do not ask why this quote was used since as teach us JP We are not here to debate the veracity.

• Locations for the 'Garden of Eden'(sic) have been offered many times before, but seldom in the somewhat inhospitable borderland where Angola and Namibia meet.Map date 50 ka contradict the article date 100ka. Note the article NYT article do not support one of main thesis of RAO: the putative "origin" of modern humans in east Africa what is clearly visible on just linked map(it show west-south Africa), but again to debate the veracity or that the 40mM supplemental (to Science Express article) data show genetic refugia. Just concentrate on neutral referring what is inside of source... Anyway no single source, sticked as <refs>, match the string "dominant view" or close approximation of it. Some superficial reasoning may be regtarded as sportive to thesis JB, but skipping its debunking perhaps match the policy wp:point, won't be ethical; and given, all surrounding admin.co-episodes do not make any sense. 76.16.183.158 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)